Report: NFL Owners May Expand Playoffs

[Fritz]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/football/5419924.htm

Report: NFL Owners May Expand Playoffs
Associated Press

NEW YORK - NFL owners might vote on a plan to expand the playoffs next season at their meetings in Phoenix, the Daily News reported Tuesday.

The playoffs would increase from six teams to seven per conference if the plan is approved next week, the newspaper reported, citing anonymous sources. The current playoff format has been in place since 1990.

The newspaper reported that the league's competition committee discussed the issue at its meeting in Florida last week, and members were split on the idea. The News said sources indicated the playoff structure will change eventually, but weren't sure when a new plan would take effect.

With seven teams, the newspaper said, only the No. 1 seeds in each conference would get first-round byes - instead of two under the current format. The other teams would play in the wild-card round.

The News also reported that owners will probably turn down a plan to change overtime rules. The proposal would guarantee each team at least one possession.

---------

I don't know how most of you feel, but I do not want any more playoff teams.

[Fritz]

The number of teams to make the playoffs should be governed by how many are needed to keep the regular season interesting until the end.

The danger of too few teams is the regualr season is over long before the last game, at least for many teams. My feeling is MLB is like this now.

The danger of too many teams is the regualr season becomes not so important. The NBA and certainly the NHL fall into this trap.

The NFL has close races into the last game, and so does not need another team to make the playoffs.

[ColtCrazy]

I'm not surprised. I figured this would happen eventually, not just because the league is bigger with 32 teams, but more playoff games mean more money.

I don't think adding a team will water down the playoffs much. Most of the time, they'll be fodder for the second seed anyway.

Although, this year wouldn't the 2-7 game have been Miami at Tennessee? That would have been a good game. And the NFC would have had New Orleans at Tampa.....and the Saints beat the Bucs. Interesting...

[oykib]

I think that it's ridiculous.

But if you're going to expand the playoffs in any sport, it's football that it'd work best in. After all, the last playoff spots are usually doled out based on arcane tie-breakers between teams with the same record, anyway.

I do think that the wildcard has hurt baseball, though. It still hasn't been demonstrated that their is any heightened level of fan interest for it.

In basketball and hockey the playoffs are a joke. Does anyone pack the house to see their team make a big run for the #4 seed, let alone an eighth seed.

[scooper]

I agree that pro football is one sport in which it would work. The fact is the NFL has the most parody of any major sports league or even major college sports. Two more teams really shouldn't water it down.

[oykib]

Originally posted by scooper
I agree that pro football is one sport in which it would work. The fact is the NFL has the most parody of any major sports league or even major college sports. Two more teams really shouldn't water it down.

I, actually, think that the parity is the problem. That parity means that the #7 seed could make it to the Super Bowl. That'd be pretty silly. You could have a 9-7 or even 8-8 team going.

This is also the problem with Baseball. Any team in Baseball can beat any other team in a short series. It happens in baseball more than any other sport.

But when you let this sort of situation happen in the postseason ( where undeserving, mediocre teams can get in ), you cheapen the regular season.

The '54 Indians made it to and lost a great, memorable World Series, the '01 Mariners didn't.

[Darkiller]

I like the "2-Wild Card game" format per conference, so having 3 Wild card games might seem "too" much" ... but all in all, having 7 Playoff teams out of 16 is not that far-fetched and I wouldn't cry for scandal.

[Anrhydeddu]

But when you let this sort of situation happen in the postseason ( where undeserving, mediocre teams can get in ), you cheapen the regular season.

I absolutely agree with this. This is one of the reasons why I think automatic berths, hockey and basketball playoffs are a joke, as well as the possibility of a college football playoffs. It's unfortunate that pro football has to follow that trend. Post season play should be all about rewarding great success in the regular season, not rewarding having a team going through the regular season motions in the hope to turn it on and get lucky when it counts.

[oykib]

WHat's really disgusting is that these leagues don't even evaluate the evidence before they make these decisions.

Part of the reason that everyone tunes in to NFL games every weekend is that they know that the week three matchup against the Panthers could mean the difference at the end of the season.

It's the total opposite when you look at the NBA and NHL. These leagues have nothing happening in the regular season, and their regular season numbers reflect it. That's why the NBA has a good set of TV contracts, a great deal with the union, and twenty years of Dr. J-Larry and Magic-Michael and still is bleeding money like a sieve. I am not paying fifty bucks to go to the local B-Ball arena to watch some totally meaningless game.

I think that the NFL has already pushed the playoff envelope as much as it should. What is your definiton of a good team. Right now the NFL is saying that as long as you are in the top third that you're good. I can live with that definition; though I don't like it immensely. Add two more teams and youre almost changing that to being in the top half. That's the joke the the NHL and NBA have.

And I, personally, don't think FOX is going to give the NFL a significant amount of money for some crappy extra 2-7 matchup.

[Travis]

Before you boys rag on hockey, take a look at it. Just from a hometown perspective, the Oiler's missed 8th place last year while still earning 92 points on the season, a record for a team that didn't make the playoffs. Dallas, who looks to be in the running for the President's Trophy this year, also missed with 90 points. Those are two very proud franchises that had packed houses as they tried to make the playoff run at the end of the season.

Thing is, in most good hockey cities, it doesn't take a playoff run to sell it out, they're sold out most of the time anyways. And with the regularity of 1st round upsets where you see the 7th or 8th seed knocking off the 'top' teams, the NHL playoff system really doesn't have much wrong with it.

[QuikSand]

One thing that I like about the current 6-team structure (for each conference) is that it seems to provide a fair tiering of rewards for everyone getting in.

What I initially don't like about the proposal is that it diminishes the value of the second seed. I like the fact that currently seed #2 gets a big advantage over #3 and #4, but still faces a likely road game in the conference championship. This proposal basically puts them back down to the same plane as seeds #3 and #4, which doesn't seem like enough reward for finishing #2.

In pro football, where the difference between two teams in final standings is frequently a matter of tiebreakers rather than a significant separation, I hate to see a huge cliff in the reward system for two adjacent teams. I think this proposal moves in that direction, by expanding the difference between being #1 and #2 in your conference.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by QuikSand
One thing that I like about the current 6-team structure (for each conference) is that it seems to provide a fair tiering of rewards for everyone getting in.

What I initially don't like about the proposal is that it diminishes the value of the second seed. I like the fact that currently seed #2 gets a big advantage over #3 and #4, but still faces a likely road game in the conference championship. This proposal basically puts them back down to the same plane as seeds #3 and #4, which doesn't seem like enough reward for finishing #2.

In pro football, where the difference between two teams in final standings is frequently a matter of tiebreakers rather than a significant separation, I hate to see a huge cliff in the reward system for two adjacent teams. I think this proposal moves in that direction, by expanding the difference between being #1 and #2 in your conference.

Ditto

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Travis
Before you boys rag on hockey, take a look at it. Just from a hometown perspective, the Oiler's missed 8th place last year while still earning 92 points on the season, a record for a team that didn't make the playoffs. Dallas, who looks to be in the running for the President's Trophy this year, also missed with 90 points. Those are two very proud franchises that had packed houses as they tried to make the playoff run at the end of the season.

Thing is, in most good hockey cities, it doesn't take a playoff run to sell it out, they're sold out most of the time anyways. And with the regularity of 1st round upsets where you see the 7th or 8th seed knocking off the 'top' teams, the NHL playoff system really doesn't have much wrong with it.

Aren't points diluted these days though? There are a number of bad teams (expansion) that everybody romps on, padding point totals. And really, Edmonton would hav been an 88 pt team and Dallas an 85 pt team if you subtract points for OTL's.

[Travis]

Hard to say. Lots of teams would have points taken away, but at the same time, strategies are based on current 'rules' so teams would have gone for a win at the end of regulation instead of allowing that extra point, and so on and so forth.

That being said, missing the playoffs with 88 points would still have been a hard pill to swallow.

Fact is, for most seasons, this is an exciting stretch as there are normally quite a few teams fighting for that last spot (thank goodness the Oiler's look to have pulled away a bit lately), and makes for playoff calibre hockey for the last two weeks of the season.

[cincyreds]

I wouldn't mind seeing this happen.

The more football the better!!

Then maybe my Cowboys can sneak in and beat all of ya'll's teams!!! Bahwahahahahahahah!

[Kodos]

Originally posted by cincyreds
I wouldn't mind seeing this happen.

The more football the better!!

Then maybe my Cowboys can sneak in and beat all of ya'll's teams!!! Bahwahahahahahahah!

Please. Let's keep this conversation confined to realistic scenarios. :p

[Craptacular]

I'd rather see ONE wild card team from each conference at most.

[Anrhydeddu]

To illustrate how absurd the playoff systems have become, I am playing OOTP5 starting in the early 1960s. From 1962 to 1968, there were 10 teams in each division and only the top team gets to be in the World Series. Think about it, none of this 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th....Nth best team getting rewarded with post season play - just the very best. Have we become a nation where we must continually to strive to reward mediocracy (or more realistically, become so greedy to accept rewarding mediocracy)?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Have we become a nation where we must continually to strive to reward mediocracy

Yes.

Next question please

[Travis]

You're also talking about a sport where they haven't had a hitter succeed 40% of the time in how many years?

Don't get me wrong, I love non-juiced baseball, but I would like to see them expand their playoffs just to keep more teams in contention (and thereby getting more revenue, giving smaller markets something to strive for as well).

[oykib]

Originally posted by Travis
You're also talking about a sport where they haven't had a hitter succeed 40% of the time in how many years?

Don't get me wrong, I love non-juiced baseball, but I would like to see them expand their playoffs just to keep more teams in contention (and thereby getting more revenue, giving smaller markets something to strive for as well).

There still isn't a case of a team making more revenue trying to get the wild card. Nobody says, hey my team's fifteen games out of first, but their only three behind that team that they only play six times a year, and is fifteen hundred miles away, for the wildcard.

Teams that have been held up as examples of the positive effect of the wildcard were really succesful for another reason.

Last year, Anaheim was actually the best team in baseball by objective measures. They had the best run differential in the majors, while playing in baseball's best division. Also they were in the hunt for their division title going into the last week. The fact that there was a wildcard killed the drama at the end of the regular season. Seattle swooned at the beginning of september so Anaheim knew that they had the booby prize sewn up.

San Francisco was the same story. They had blown by L.A. by the second week of September and mounted a charge on Arizona that no one paid attention to. No one paid attention because they knew the Giants were going to get the consolation prize anyway.

People come out for pennant races. People tune in for pennant races. No one talks about the big push that their team made five years ago for the wildcard. I dislike the wildcard. It's not even fair because teams play unbalanced schedules. Honestly the White Sox or Twins could be vastly inferior to any team in the west and still take the Wildcard because they have three potential 90-game losers in their division.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by cincyreds
I wouldn't mind seeing this happen.

The more football the better!!

Then maybe my Cowboys can sneak in and beat all of ya'll's teams!!! Bahwahahahahahahah!

Right with ya partner. :cool:

As a fan of a team that hasn't had a winning record in years, I'm all for this. :D

For those that say this cheapens the postseason like baseball. As far as I'm concerned, a fluke baseball team has a great chance of making it all the way but 8-8 football teams are almost always crushed by a stronger opponent somewhere in the playoffs. The weak teams will still get kicked out early.